Is Australia’s Multicultural Swamp Outdated?

This is an extensive excerpt from Nick Cater’s column in today’s Australian. It has its flaws, but its worth a read. I have fisked this excerpt, the whole article with some comments is below the fold.

“…Never before in Australia’s happy and successful history of migration has the threat of separatism seemed so acute or so visible on the streets of our capital cities.

Fact.

Once migrants would have felt uncomfortable going about their daily business in national dress. Yet parts of Sydney and Melbourne have become lands of the long white robe, not to mention the even more confronting burka.

Welcome to Islam. Islam is different. We are not dealing with Greeks, Italians or Germans here. These are soldiers of allah.

These are the outward signs of a diaspora that feels no obligation to fit in without fuss and instead transports its own conventions to a distant corner of the globe and wears them as a badge of identity.

It is a crime to transplant them here and to aid and abet their causes.

Thanks to the internet and satellite television they remain part of the community they left behind, relying less on friendship and cultural ties in Australia.

They get their marching orders from the hate preachers in the mosques. Doesn’t matter if its here or on youtube.

This is not immigration as we know it but transnationalism, in which the new arrival draws support from a self-contained cultural community that strongly asserts its own identity and would, if it could, operate under its own laws.

Every Muslim is by the law of allah obligated to remove all obstacles to the sharia, and to do away with the “man-made law” of the disbelievers.

It is an existence with a conflicted sense of belonging and place, in which citizenship serves as a flag of convenience rather than a pledge of loyalty.

We have tried so hard to tell you for so many years, and still the coin doesn’t drop.

Humanitarian category migrants who arrived by boat are different from other migrants in important respects: 24 per cent of men and 67 per cent of women had never been in paid employment; 33 per cent of men and 44 per cent of women had never spoken English; 17 per cent of men and 23 per cent of women were illiterate in their own language. Unsurprisingly, they have struggled to find a job, to access government services or to make small talk with their Australian neighbours.

Muslims don’t invade to work. They come to demand (and receive) the jiziya and to work towards the demise of the infidel society.

It is their good fortune to arrive in a country that grants not just shelter but a fair go. Yet, held back by limited capacity, it’s hardly surprising if they seek the comfort of a cultural enclave from which they need never emerge.

Its not only the “limited capacity” that holds them back. A Muslim must not take orders from an infidel, especially not from a woman. No matter how ‘incapacitated’, they are still plotting our demise.

Is this a problem? The (Productivity) commission thinks so.

“To the extent that immigrants’ intent to integrate is decreasing, it raises an important issue about whether this provides scope for separatism that conflicts with, and/or has the ability to undermine, key norms and longstanding understandings that are important to the functioning of Australian society and that are valued by many,” it concludes.

The word “Muslim” is missing. Its embarrassing to see such a mealy mouthed statement from the Productivity commission.

A nervous government would leave this bombshell of a report hidden in the bottom drawer, call community leaders in for a cup of tea and exchange pleasantries.

Turncoat celebrates Ramadan with them and praises their non-achievements like the fool he is.

A wiser course would be to think again about a model of multiculturalism that badly shows its age; one that predates the internet, the mass arrival of asylum-seekers on our shores and the rise of an assertive religious ideology.

Get in on the action. Vote for the Australian Liberty Alliance!

Hanson is justified in sensing the vulnerability of the Australian way of life. But the threat is not a surfeit of Islam, it’s the failure of integration..”

No. Its the rejection of reality, ignorance to study up on Islam and the taqiyya, the deceit that we simply are too naive to understand.

“Integration” for the Muslims means ‘we are here, we are here to stay, and there is nothing you can do about it. Deal with if, Kafir!’

Assimilation is “a crime against humanity”, and once you understand that only Muslims consider themselves human, you might have a chance to work with us on a plan to reverse this calamity that thoughtless politclowns have inflicted on us.

Swamped by outdated multicultural model

But we did face a deluge of soft-headed compassion-mongers who managed to talk Kevin Rudd into relaxing the asylum rules, thus boosting Indonesia’s black market economy and depleting its supply of unseaworthy boats.

For our part we received 50,000 or so self-selected new Australians, chiefly from the Middle East and north and sub-Saharan Africa, who have struggled with barriers of language and culture and fitted in less well than the skilled and educated migrants from Asia and Europe.

That much is evident from a data-rich Productivity Commission report released last week that, taken seriously, would prompt a fundamental rethink of immigration policy.

The broad conclusions will give the Kumbaya crowd goose bumps: immigration is a driver of the economy; skilled and semi-skilled migrants integrate well; only a third of the population believe immigration levels are too high; discontent in many European nations is at more than twice that level.

When we get to the detail, however, the rose tint begins to lose its hue. Humanitarian migrants have miserable prospects; the likelihood they will be earning their keep in the labour market, even five years after arrival, is far lower than the general population.

Participation in the labour market is the best measure of integration, a word that fell out of favour for a while among the multicultural elite. Fortunately, the commission rejects the dreamy narrative of cultural diversity, recommending integration at the heart of government policy.

“A deterioration in the integration of immigrants would be of detriment to Australia,” the commission argues.

It’s not for nothing, however, that the commission’s initials are PC. The report stops short of examining the pertinent question of whether a migrant’s country of birth may influence integration.

The effective ban on discussing these matters in polite company has consequences.

The arrival in the Senate of a basket of deplorables — among them Hanson and three of her chums — shows that when decent people are told not to say the unsayable, they take their votes to politicians who will.

Hanson’s dread of being “swamped by Muslims” prompted predictable scolding from the usual well-spoken arbiters of good taste.

Jonathan Green on ABC Radio National’s Sunday Extra — our weekly reminder of how the modern Left habitually misses the point — thought Hanson’s anti-Islam comments were “actually a proxy for more immediate welfare concerns about my job, my future — that sort of thing — and I’m looking for someone on whom to blame that sense of unease”.

Panellist Eleanor Jackson agreed.

“I think it’s sad that she often wants to look down the power hierarchy to understand her feelings of insecurity rather than look more broadly in our community,” Jackson said. “Is it neoliberalism, is it globalisation?”

Well, no, actually. It’s Islam. And, whether the ABC taste police want us to talk about it or not, Hanson’s anxiety is not uncommon in much of the Western world.

The reasons aren’t that hard to fathom given the unrelenting threat of terror from some of Islam’s politicised followers, compounded by the noticeable reluctance of some Muslim immigrants to integrate.

Never before in Australia’s happy and successful history of migration has the threat of separatism seemed so acute or so visible on the streets of our capital cities.

Once migrants would have felt uncomfortable going about their daily business in national dress. Yet parts of Sydney and Melbourne have become lands of the long white robe, not to mention the even more confronting burka.

These are the outward signs of a diaspora that feels no obligation to fit in without fuss and instead transports its own conventions to a distant corner of the globe and wears them as a badge of identity.

Thanks to the internet and satellite television they remain part of the community they left behind, relying less on friendship and cultural ties in Australia.

This is not immigration as we know it but transnationalism, in which the new arrival draws support from a self-contained cultural community that strongly asserts its own identity and would, if it could, operate under its own laws.

It is an existence with a conflicted sense of belonging and place, in which citizenship serves as a flag of convenience rather than a pledge of loyalty.

Humanitarian category migrants who arrived by boat are different from other migrants in important respects: 24 per cent of men and 67 per cent of women had never been in paid employment; 33 per cent of men and 44 per cent of women had never spoken English; 17 per cent of men and 23 per cent of women were illiterate in their own language. Unsurprisingly, they have struggled to find a job, to access government services or to make small talk with their Australian neighbours.

It is their good fortune to arrive in a country that grants not just shelter but a fair go. Yet, held back by limited capacity, it’s hardly surprising if they seek the comfort of a cultural enclave from which they need never emerge.

Is this a problem? The commission thinks so.

“To the extent that immigrants’ intent to integrate is decreasing, it raises an important issue about whether this provides scope for separatism that conflicts with, and/or has the ability to undermine, key norms and longstanding understandings that are important to the functioning of Australian society and that are valued by many,” it concludes.

A nervous government would leave this bombshell of a report hidden in the bottom drawer, call community leaders in for a cup of tea and exchange pleasantries.

A wiser course would be to think again about a model of multiculturalism that badly shows its age; one that predates the internet, the mass arrival of asylum-seekers on our shores and the rise of an assertive religious ideology.

Hanson is justified in sensing the vulnerability of the Australian way of life. But the threat is not a surfeit of Islam, it’s the failure of integration.

Nick Cater is executive director of Menzies Research Centre.

Poster Bernie gets it:

I normally agree wholeheartedly with Nick Cater, but not in this instance.

Here are three responses to your article that come to mind:

1. Nick says: “It’s not for nothing, however, that the commission’s initials are PC. The report stops short of examining the pertinent question of whether a migrant’s country of birth may influence integration”.

Unfortunately, that response is, in itself, a PC response.

The absolute reality is that is not “… a migrant’s country of birth may influence integration” so much as it is the religion of the migrant that will influence integration.

For instance – Christian Pakistanis, Syrians and Egyptians will integrate far quicker and more completely than their muslim counterparts.

Religion is the key – not nationality – it is what in the heads of migrants that is crucial, not from whence they came.

2. Nick correctly points out the reality of muslims in Australia clinging absolutely to their traditions and customs from whichever islamic country they have left, most noticeably in their choice of dress. He then says “This is not immigration as we know it but transnationalism, in which the new arrival draws support from a self-contained cultural community that strongly asserts its own identity and would, if it could, operate under its own laws”.

A much better word than “transnationalism” is this: colonisation.

Because that is what we are facing – that is what is happening across all of the western world including Australia – we are being colonised by muslims who are determined to ultimately, eventually and inevitably supplant and replace the existing non-muslim population of the host country with a new islamic community that shall rule via sharia law.

As one muslim cleric said back in the 1990s: “By your laws we shall conquer you. By our laws we shall rule you”.

Of course, these muslims are delighted to be funded on the way by Australian Social Security payments, even as they defy the law with laughing disdain in respect of polygamy, FGM, support for ISIS and Australian jihadis and passive support for other local islamic lads who have either been jailed for plotting to kill as many Australians as possible, or killed or arrested by police whilst in the process of attempting such violence.

3. Finally, Nick closes the article with this observation: “But the threat is not a surfeit of Islam, it’s the failure of integration”.

No. The problem truly and verily is a surfeit of islam – because anything islamic is, by its very nature, impervious to change and incapable of integration.

Like Lybia …
“We were all happy in Syria: we had free school and university education available for everyone, free healthcare, no GMO, no fluoride, no chemtrails, no Rothschild IMF- controlled bank, state owned central bank which gives 11% interest, we are [were] self-sufficient and have no foreign debt to any country or bank.”

irrespective … Syria … was/is still a majority islam country
the irrevocable TRUTH about islam !
islam DEMANDS three things
1. Conversion of ALL non-islams to islam !
2. Willing Subjugation of “of the book“ non-islams by islam !
3. Kill ALL not “of the book“ non-islams who will not convert and kill ALL “of the book“ non-islams who will not convert or be willingly subjugated by islam !

Could also mention from colonisation comes the ultimate goal of “White Genocide “.

So why deploy such a dangerous act of treason upon law abiding and civilised society?

If it were just Australia that this was happening,it would likely be seen as an individual country gone soft.But it’s more than that . It’s Western civilisation that is apparently rolling over and taking this invasion.
And the real question should be why and who is ordering destructive and criminally dangerous developments to take footing and prosper?
This suicidal act of insanity is also blanketed in PC excuses,when the attrocities of death and serious injury to the victims of terror are played out. We did here for long enough that,”This has nothing to do with islam” warcry played out .They’re not using it so much now. Have the PC brigade now brought us another twist on the excuses? Have they hijacked “Mental Health Issues”,as the recent decoy to persuade us to think that whatever act of evil was committed,it wasn’t by some perpetrators acting within islam? But by their version of what they believe to be islam?
Still the same lame excuses of “This has nothing to do with islam “.Same dress,different mannequin.
The appeasers/traitors playing with excuses and “wordsmithing” to cover up muslim intent.
So back to the question of who is allowing these dangerous developments to prosper,and why?
When will “Enough ” mean “Enough ” ?

it isn’t just in ‘white’ (that is, white non-Islamic) countries that Muslims are using hijra (immigration-invasion, demographic swamping).

They are using it against Melanesian – black as the ace of spades – Christians and animists in Indonesia (indeed, the whole ‘transmigration’ thing in Indonesia is de facto hijra; by it, large numbers of Muslims to regions that historically had few or no Muslims, overwhelming the locals; and then following it up with warfare – the ethnic cleansing of the historically-Christian-and-animist Moluccas region in the 1990s – churches destroyed, thousands killed outright, thousands force-‘converted’ to Islam, thousands driven permanently from homes that then became Muslim property).

The situation in Myanmar is basically the result of hijra: Muslims seizing an ‘opening’ provided during the era of the raj, to enter and settle in historically-non-Muslim areas of Burma/ Myanmar, which they then try to make exclusively their own.

Muslims today are pouring illegally out of Bangladesh into parts of India – West Bengal and other neighbouring areas – and then using riots, threats, crime, and the lure of the Muslim bloc vote to achieve local/ regional dominance.

And Muslims have been using hijra to colonise very large chunks of Africa that were, only as recently as the 1950s, entirely non-Islamic. The civil wars in Liberia, Ivory Coast, Cote d’Ivoire, are all the result of a flooding-in of Muslims into previously non-Islamised regions, from regions that had been ISlamised in prior eras. Muslims pour in, behave badly, local Infidels have to either fight back and push out the Muslims, or flee… and lose territory. This pattern applies whether it is anglo-aussies fleeing Lakemba and Auburn, or non-Muslim Indians or Africans fleeing from villages, suburbs, towns and whole districts that had previously not been inhabited by Msulims but are now “colonised”. Kenya – overwhelmingly Christian, with the balance animist – has been destabilised by Muslim hijra from Somalia, followed by jihad erupting from the Muslim ‘refugee’ ‘community’ the moment that said ‘community’ got big enough and strong enough and felt like Going Jihad. In Uganda and Tanzania Muslims have corrupted and infiltrated politics, army, military and commerce so that majority-non-Islamic countries – indeed, Uganda’s population is overwhelmingly non-Islamic – are in imminent danger of falling to Islam (Barnabas Fund’s reports on the current situation in those three places are very disturbing).

The Turkish Muslim ‘community’ in Bulgaria is rapidly being ‘weaponised’, hijra-style (Bulgarians would have been better off, back when they threw off the Ottoman yoke, to have driven out every last Muslim in the country, allowing not even one to remain).

This is a worldwide pattern and has happened many times before. If Muslims locally, regionally or even on a larger scale cannot openly invade by main force and frontal assault, they follow the sneakier method by which Mohammed got into and then took over Yathrib/ Medina.